Interference on runner who already scored

[UmpireTommy]

Little League rules- very comparable to OBR I believe.

 

R1 only nobody out, batter hits a deep fly ball to the fence and R1 comes around to score. BR then also attempts to score but R1 is still lying near the plate causing F2 to try and run around him to make a tag. No tag is made on the BR but I called him out for interference on R1 because he was no longer apart of the play and he hindered the catchers ability to make a play.

 

Whats the ruling gentlemen?

[ousafe]

I think I'm missing part of the scenario. Why and where was R1 lying on the ground?  Why was the catcher not at or near the plate already? Was F2 chasing down an errant throw?

[UmpireTommy]

24 minutes ago, ousafe said:

I think I'm missing part of the scenario. Why and where was R1 lying on the ground?  Why was the catcher not at or near the plate already? Was F2 chasing down an errant throw?

Sorry I didn’t give a great explanation. R1 was just lying on the ground because he had slid into home and had not gotten up yet. He was roughly towards the back of the right-handed batters box. The catcher was grabbing the ball that ricocheted off of the backstop and coming back towards the plate to make a tag which put him just behind R1 causing him to try and evade R1 before making a tag attempt on BR.

[noumpere]

5 hours ago, Worlds Worst Umpire said:

 he had slid into home and had not gotten up yet. He was roughly towards the back of the right-handed batters box.

That's a weird slide.

We need video, and it depends on the timing,  but it's your judgement

[maven]

The relevant rule requires retired/scored runners to attempt to vacate any area required by the defense to make a play. 

So, if R1 had time to do so and failed, then INT is the correct call (dead ball, BR out for R1's INT, score R1's but not BR's run). If it was bang-bang, then play the bounce.

[834k3r]

11 hours ago, Worlds Worst Umpire said:

R1 only nobody out, batter hits a deep fly ball to the fence and R1 comes around to score. BR then also attempts to score but R1 is still lying near the plate causing F2 to try and run around him to make a tag. No tag is made on the BR but I called him out for interference on R1 because he was no longer apart of the play and he hindered the catchers ability to make a play.

Based on how this looks in my head, I think you made the right call. The trick is explaining it to the manager of the team at bat when he comes unglued.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. maven, I wonder what is the relevant rule you referred to? And is it a Little League rule or an OBR? 

I ask because the rule cited in the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual does not say anything about requiring the scored runner to vacate the area. Please clarify.

[Jimurray]

43 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. maven, I wonder what is the relevant rule you referred to? And is it a Little League rule or an OBR? 

I ask because the rule cited in the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual does not say anything about requiring the scored runner to vacate the area. Please clarify.

Doesn’t the scored runner become a member of the offensive team in FED and OBR?

[maven]

8 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Based on how this looks in my head, I think you made the right call. The trick is explaining it to the manager of the team at bat when he comes unglued.

We can't really judge the correctness of judgment calls without video. The video in our heads isn't sufficient. 

I, too, say "as I'm picturing this..." and then judge. But that's useful for the application of a rule, not for assessment of a judgment call. That approach can also clarify the description of a play. But any call we make is contingent on the adequacy of the picture.

What if our head video is off, and now some umpire goes around announcing that he's right, when he isn't? We need to be careful there. Some newer umpires treat our forum as more authoritative than it is.

And I apologize for picking on this particular post of yours—it just reminded me of a trend here that I had wanted to address. Not trying to pile on.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Doesn’t the scored runner become a member of the offensive team in FED and OBR?

Well, he was a member of it before. But after he scores he loses his status as a runner (which confers certain privileges), so now he's merely a member of the offensive team.

[Senor Azul]

The so called "relevant rule" that Mr. maven describes as requiring a scored runner to vacate the area is actually a batter interference rule. It's Little League rule 6.06(c)(3) and is not the applicable rule for the scenario in the OP.

The applicable Little League rule is actually 7.09(e). It describes interference by a retired runner which is the rule we use for interference by scored runners also.

The corresponding OBR rule is 6.01(a)(5) which applies to interference by any batter or runner who has just been put out or any runner who has just scored. If the retired/scored runner hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, that runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

[ousafe]

IF the only reason the scored runner hindered was because the defense erred (the catcher was retrieving an errant throw), doesn't his hindrance have to be deemed intentional?

[Jimurray]

43 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

The so called "relevant rule" that Mr. maven describes as requiring a scored runner to vacate the area is actually a batter interference rule. It's Little League rule 6.06(c)(3) and is not the applicable rule for the scenario in the OP.

The applicable Little League rule is actually 7.09(e). It describes interference by a retired runner which is the rule we use for interference by scored runners also.

The corresponding OBR rule is 6.01(a)(5) which applies to interference by any batter or runner who has just been put out or any runner who has just scored. If the retired/scored runner hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, that runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

Except we allow them to continue to run or slide absent intent. At some point a scored runner becomes a teammate/coach who can't physically assist a following runner. I think @maven was referring to the requirement for members of the offensive team to vacate any area needed to make a play. At what point does a scored runner, runners being allowed to physically assist other runners, become a teammate who can't assist a following runner and subject to the need to vacate. Do we have to judge if time to vacate was available? while not relevant to the OP I seem to remember a long ago play where the scored runner was walking to the dugout and was hit by an errant throw. That was nothing in an MLB game but it probably doesn't help us.

[ousafe]

@Jimurray I think the LL rule you mean is this one:

"7.11 - The players, coaches, or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

But in the OP the ball was already fielded. It does not reference making a "play", as you say. So I don't think this covers F2 scrambling back to the plate.

The definition of interference in LL rule 2 covers the scenario, but I'd have a hard time calling it if it rewards the defense for erring.

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, ousafe said:

@Jimurray I think the LL rule you mean is this one:

"7.11 - The players, coaches, or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

But in the OP the ball was already fielded. It does not reference making a "play", as you say. So I don't think this covers F2 scrambling back to the plate.

The definition of interference in LL rule 2 covers the scenario, but I'd have a hard time calling it if it rewards the defense for erring.

I agree that we don’t award the defense for putting the ball on the ground except for an interesting OBR rule addition. In the OP there still was a thrown ball. I think a play is mentioned later in the rule you cited. 

[UmpireTommy]

11 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Based on how this looks in my head, I think you made the right call. The trick is explaining it to the manager of the team at bat when he comes unglued.

Luckily the score was 17-3 at this point so this wasn’t a big deal and all I said is I felt that his runner hindered the catchers attempt to make a play on the BR. He seemed satisfied with that answer so it didn’t cause any issues. This is something I never had really encountered and it seems like not many others have as well. 

[maven]

9 hours ago, ousafe said:

@Jimurray I think the LL rule you mean is this one:

"7.11 - The players, coaches, or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

But in the OP the ball was already fielded. It does not reference making a "play", as you say. So I don't think this covers F2 scrambling back to the plate.

The definition of interference in LL rule 2 covers the scenario, but I'd have a hard time calling it if it rewards the defense for erring.

The batted ball was already fielded. After that, wherever a live ball is — outside of a player's hand or glove — it's a thrown ball. So, yes, the OP still involves a thrown ball and falls under the rule.

10 hours ago, ousafe said:

IF the only reason the scored runner hindered was because the defense erred (the catcher was retrieving an errant throw), doesn't his hindrance have to be deemed intentional?

This is not a rule in OBR or FED, so I'll infer it's not in LL either.

Folks sometimes say things like, "Let's not reward the defense for erring." And that's fine, but it does not allow us to make up rules. Instead, it can influence the judgment component of the call. 

In the OP, R3 scores and doesn't move fast enough to avoid hindering the defense. Did he have the opportunity to move? That's the question where we can consider the context, and give a bit more leeway to the offense.

But there will still be obvious instances of INT that we have to call, where R3 clearly did have time to move and made no attempt to do so. "Not rewarding the defense" cannot nullify the call we need to make there.

[834k3r]

17 hours ago, maven said:

And I apologize for picking on this particular post of yours—it just reminded me of a trend here that I had wanted to address. Not trying to pile on.

[beerguy55]

17 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The so called "relevant rule" that Mr. maven describes as requiring a scored runner to vacate the area is actually a batter interference rule. It's Little League rule 6.06(c)(3) and is not the applicable rule for the scenario in the OP.

The applicable Little League rule is actually 7.09(e). It describes interference by a retired runner which is the rule we use for interference by scored runners also.

The corresponding OBR rule is 6.01(a)(5) which applies to interference by any batter or runner who has just been put out or any runner who has just scored. If the retired/scored runner hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, that runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

 

20 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. maven, I wonder what is the relevant rule you referred to? And is it a Little League rule or an OBR? 

I ask because the rule cited in the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual does not say anything about requiring the scored runner to vacate the area. Please clarify.

I would suggest it's common sense, though I guess some need things spelt out in black and white.

A scored runner can be liable for interference on a play on a runner.  Common sense (or the simple ability to use contextual clues derived from knowing that scored runners can be out for interference) would dictate that a runner who just scored needs to vacate and GTFO of the way, and the same common sense would (should?) also dictate the scored runner have some reasonable time to do so (ie. he can't just disappear when he touches the plate).

So, if two runners are approaching home plate about five steps apart, the first runner who slides across the plate isn't (likely) to be held for interference for a play on the following runner 0.2 seconds later.

But if following runner was 3-4 seconds behind, the scored runner should have been able to get out of the way.

[Mussgrass]

I agree that without video we can't really judge accurately. However, if the BR is attempting to score and the lead runner right in front of him had to slide into HP then that lead runner probably won't have time to get out of the way, and as such would not be guilty of INT unless he did something intentional.

[ErichKeane]

2 hours ago, Mussgrass said:

I agree that without video we can't really judge accurately. However, if the BR is attempting to score and the lead runner right in front of him had to slide into HP then that lead runner probably won't have time to get out of the way, and as such would not be guilty of INT unless he did something intentional.

It sounds like close play at the plate, ball gets by catcher to the backstop, so next runner continues to the plate.  F2 runs back to the plate, now equipped with the ball, but has to step around the scored runner.  It comes down to the judgement call for me, whether there was time (like the 2nd runner was 90 feet behind vs 10 feet behind) to get out of the way.

That said, 'sliding' isn't good evidence of a close play being there.  I've definitely had players slide while the ball was still being chased around hte outfield.

[Mussgrass]

I guess (of course, no video) I envision R1 holding up to make sure the ball doesn't get caught while the BR runs hard the whole way, putting him right behind R1 as they circle the bases. 

[Jimurray]

On 10/12/2023 at 11:36 AM, Mussgrass said:

I agree that without video we can't really judge accurately. However, if the BR is attempting to score and the lead runner right in front of him had to slide into HP then that lead runner probably won't have time to get out of the way, and as such would not be guilty of INT unless he did something intentional.

Once a runner is retired or scored intent is not a factor in judging INT. They are allowed to continue to run, slide, return but any other act which interferes does not require intent. 

"6.01(a)(5)  Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j)); 

Rule 6.01(a)(5) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."

R1 "JUST SCORED". No intent required. While it seems fair to give him time to vacate I don't think the rule allows for that. We have to apply the rule even though it doesn't seem fair just as other OBR rules don't seem fair. eg: Runner hit by batted ball can have some would consider unfair results.

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

R1 "JUST SCORED". No intent required. While it seems fair to give him time to vacate I don't think the rule allows for that. We have to apply the rule even though it doesn't seem fair just as other OBR rules don't seem fair. eg: Runner hit by batted ball can have some would consider unfair results.

If we take this to the most extreme example, of a throw coming to F2 with two runners one step apart.  By letter of the rule(s), if the first runner is tagged out as he slides into home he won't (shouldn't?) be ruled to interfere with F2's attempt to get the following runner - however, if the lead runner scores, he would be.   I suspect this is not the spirit or intent of the rule (or the 6.01(a)(5) comment) - I suspect, and reserve the right to be wrong, that the intent of the rule is to apply the same standard to both, to some degree. 

And following that spirit, sliding into home and laying there for 3-4 seconds would not be "continuing to advance"...getting up and making way for the dugout would be...(?)

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

 

And following that spirit, sliding into home and laying there for 3-4 seconds would not be "continuing to advance"...getting up and making way for the dugout would be...(?)

Once you are off the basepaths you are not continuing to advance but the only time I saw a throw hit a scored runner in MLB it was wildly offline with the scored runner almost halfway to the dugout and I believe there was no call which probably was because it didn't hinder or interfere with anything. But maybe we can use the "continuing to advance" exception to allow a scored runner a period of time before we call INT.

[BigBlue4u]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:05 PM, Senor Azul said:

If the retired/scored runner hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, that runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

WWU--Sr. Azul is asking a pertinent question, which you have not addressed:

In your judgment, did R1 interfere with the catcher's attempt to tag the BR?  In other words, did R1's action prevent the catcher from tagging out the BR? If the BR would have been safe regardless of the interference, I have no call against the BR.